Grrr, this pisses me off. Not that the jails exist, but that someone is willing to expose them.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...237589,00.html

Heh, well the fact that they exist pisses me off [img]tongue.gif[/img] I think that articles like these are the one thing that redeems a paper which otherwise annoys the hell out of me for being so left-wing and liberal.

That story is a year old anyway, but ties in with this one about concerns raised by human rights agencies about possibly dozens of Abu Ghraibs. Also this latest story about how Bush is attempting to weasel his way around anti-torture laws.

My personal opinion is that an administration which approves of torture, acts outside both the spirit and arguably the letter of the law when it suits and also acts in contradiction to America's founding values (whilst preaching them to the rest of the world) needs publicly shaming.

Keeping things like this secret would also deny the American public a chance to make an informed opinion about the administration and its policies - this is not acceptable when trying to run a decent democracy.

Not to mention, we in the rest of the world would also prefer to make informed decisions about these issues - if the claims in the article are true (and to my knowledge there has never been denial) then the Guardian does us all a service.

[ 11-03-2005, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Well, the only reason I chose the guardian is because it was a website, I'm not sure how to source TV shows (CBC evening news was where I first heard the news).

The fact remains that anti-torture laws are, in my opinion, useless. A person does NOT have the right to withold information from law enforcement. Even if they are arrested by the mossad/gestapo/whatever, I dont give a damn if he's innocent or guilty. If a government is willing to torture someone, then what that individual was suspected of doing must be terrible indeed. Seeing as how people aren't just picked off the streets, especially in America, I can't see the purpose of witholding a valuable method of information extraction.

/rant

[ 11-03-2005, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: Sir Degrader ]

The problem with torture is well known, at some point most people will just give up and tell the torturer whatever they think the torturer wants to hear, making it reasonably unlikely that the information is reliable. Humanitarian concerns aside the chance of bad info is a good enough reason not to use it (just as it's enough to keep lie detector tests inadmissible in court).

I think it is rather cowardly to put and hide our secret jails in other countries. Fear of Constitution. If it's good enough for Americans to be doing, then it's good enough to be done in America.

First off, I think that some basic principles of our constitution apply to non-citizens, including the basic rights of habeas corpus and the opportunity for a trial where you can present evidence and confront your accuser.

I don't mind if the jails are secret, or in other countries. I do mind if our government, as it does, keeps "combatants" or any other type of ALLEGED criminal indefinately without a trial.

I'm all for military tribunals and the like. So long as the accused gets a lawyer, access to the evidence against him, and the opportunity to defend himself in a fair tribunal.

These are the bigger issues that concern me -- not whether the jails are secret or not.

I researched/worked with torture survivors. In most countries, torture is actually just state terror to maintain power. Therefore, in most cases people aren't picked up for anything terrible. Make no mistake, it isn't random, it's always for a reason. Religion, party affiliation, physical deformity, independent wealth or land holding, ethnicity, 'race', or voicing opinions are all things I can tell you people I've met have been tortured over. In a lot of cases, I can just about promise you, you'd be ashamed of yourself if you didn't do what the tortured person did to get into that position. Cherry-picked example: a man who ran a home for the elderly was asked to send the food that came his way in the direction of the army. His choice was whether or not to starve elderly people. He suffered the worst torture I've ever heard of when he refused.

Besides, Morge is absolutely correct. Try to get information by torture and you'll get the answer that stops the torture. If the law enforcement agents don't know the information they're trying to extract, how are they going to know they're not being lied to? If the law enforcement agents know the answer, then it's torture for repression. Thing about this is...torture is almost never about interrogation.

The US signed (and wrote most of) the UN Convention Against Torture in the context of this norm of torture as repression, but you can bet it covers the interrogation room as well. Obviously, some in current positions of power in the US want to change the rules. (Though it's certainly not as if the rules have been followed in spirit for at least 2 decades).

Also consider the countries that these jails are in...what are they getting out of it? I don't think I could be happy with any answer to that question.

Nothing justifies torture IMO. The movie script time-bomb scenario has never happened. It might be good to have a contingency plan in case the absurd happens, but to support anything that facilitates torture is to support a system of violence against hundreds of thousands of people in any given year for the propping up of governments that by all rights shouldn't exist.

Like, uh, what? Resisting the jihad? Not for nothing, but our enemies torture, too. If we're okaying torture, logically we're saying it's okay to torture US troops that are captured. And for some strange reason that plain don't sit right with me.

Rightttt!

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Degrader: [qb] I dont give a damn if he's innocent or guilty.

Okayyyyy!

I understand Saddam used the same line of reasoning.

One last thing - as the article is nearly 18 months old how does it qualify as "Current Events"?

Perhaps you just missed a few smileys out here !

[ 11-04-2005, 05:34 AM: Message edited by: Lanesra ]

Yeah, I'm wondering if there was a smiley missing too. This...
happens to be one of the least thoughtful things I've ever heard. Dude! What government guilty of torture has EVER been able to justify it based on the wrongs of the tortured victim (or "Party" if you prefer). Any time torture has ever been used by the state, it has turned into a capricious and vindictive device in short order -- a means of allowing our government to become flat out oppressors.

You need to learn to trust your government less. No mode of government will ever work if the governed aren't smart enough to constantly distrust it, police it, watchdog it, and often neuter and spay it.

No, if I can get to the top, I don't really give much of a damn what it takes for me to stay there. I know problems associated with my prior statement, but at least it keeps the populace in line.

Yes, I'm sure many torture-practicing government would very much agree. Saddam's populace was very well behaved, before we tried to free them.

Would you believe me if I told you it was possible to clamber to the "top" of the social/financial dungheap while still remaining cynical, still hating your government, and still yelling about it loudly and proudly every day? ;)

Until you happen to be in one, even though you are completely innocent but your government feels that you are hiding information from them?

I fail to see how anybody in this day and age could be an advocate of torture? We might as well just revert right back to the middle ages, and take up witch hunting again.

I just wanted to point out that this isn't the case - to date the government has picked several thousand people off the streets of America, holding them for months at a time with no explanation why, eventually releasing some without any reason for their initial detention or any compensation.

During their long stay in prison their shops/businesses have failed, their family has been plunged into poverty and they are released back onto the streets with their life shattered.

I suggest you do a little digging into the 'rounding up' that occurred after 9/11. And if that doesn't convince you that you're not safe from this government then pick up a copy of the patriot act and have a read... And no, just because its called the patriot act doesn't mean that you must like it if you're patriotic [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 11-04-2005, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Until you happen to be in one, even though you are completely innocent but your government feels that you are hiding information from them?

I fail to see how anybody in this day and age could be an advocate of torture? We might as well just revert right back to the middle ages, and take up witch hunting again. </font>[/QUOTE]She_turned_me_into_a_newt._____I_got_better....(so rry_my_spacebar_isn't_working_going_to_get_a_new_o ne_today)

No, if I can get to the top, I don't really give much of a damn what it takes for me to stay there. I know problems associated with my prior statement, but at least it keeps the populace in line. </font>[/QUOTE]Being a top government official never helped those that were sent to Gulag by Stalin, or those arrested by Saddam, during "clean-ups".

No, but what are the chances of a soviet style government popping up in Canada anytime soon?

These things can sneak up on you if you're not careful.

As I recall, the rise of the Soviet Union came by a revolution, followed by a civil war. Not exactly sneaking up.

Oppressive governments doesn't have to come about by a revolution. Remember, Hitler was voted into office.

Yes, but the socio-economic conditions that let him be elected (hyper inflation, loss of empire, etc) simply aren't present on this side of the iron curtain.

We are not in any way immune to these kind of things. Early 20th century Russia or Germany are not some kind of parallel universes that operates on completely different conditions than the modern Western world.

These events happened less than a 100 years ago, and in the case of Germany, in a leading industrial Western country. "It can't happen here"-type of arguments are not very comforting.

In all these situations, there were exacerbating circumstances. Germany had recently lost a MAJOR war, gone through incredible inflation, and had been cheated by the Treaty of Versailles. Name one major nation today that is the equivalent to the Weimar Republic.

Do you really think they give a damn anyways?

Do you really think they give a damn anyways? </font>[/QUOTE]I certainly think the world gives a damn. Good luck saying "Ooh, look, they're torturing our troops and violating the Geneva Convention" if we're doing the same thing.

In all these situations, there were exacerbating circumstances. Germany had recently lost a MAJOR war, gone through incredible inflation, and had been cheated by the Treaty of Versailles. </font>[/QUOTE]You're right. We're not losing a war or anything, and our economy is doing just fine. Oh, wait, that's right.

Just two out of three doesn't mean we're safe. Imagine! Imagine someone running for office, with the promise of getting us out of an unwinnable war, restoring pride to our one-respected nation... Don't tell me that can't happen.

AFAIK, these aren't soldiers that are being tortured, simply terrorists.

What if they aren't? What if the government made a mistake? You think the government never makes mistakes? And what about things like basic human dignity? What about things like hypocrisy? I don't know what kind of world you want to live in, but I don't want a government that tortures. If not for the egregious breach of human rights here, why don't you stop and think for a moment about a government that goes unchecked? If we let them torture people, they'll get too big for themselves. They'll spread it out. Since we're torturing terrorists, why can't we torture this here serial killer and make him tell us where he hid the body? Use your brain!

I highlighted the case of one Iraqi general in a post in CE many months ago. He fought in uniform, didn't desert his unit and tried to repel the invasion when it took place. For some reason he was being held as an enemy combatant by the US rather than as a prisoner of war.

Illumina is absolutely right - this is a slippery slope - if you violate the geneva convention once it becomes more and more acceptable to do it for other cases which you would never have considered initially.

This was one of the key factors behind the Abu Ghraib scandal according to the US report - previous breaches of the geneva convention and speeches by political leaders about how it shouldn't always apply made the soldiers think that what they were doing was acceptable.

In all these situations, there were exacerbating circumstances. Germany had recently lost a MAJOR war, gone through incredible inflation, and had been cheated by the Treaty of Versailles. Name one major nation today that is the equivalent to the Weimar Republic. </font>[/QUOTE]You missed my point, Sir Degrader. The scenario doesn't have to be indentical to the Weimar Republic for something like this to happen. The West today is facing troubles of our own.

We don't know the identities of these prisoners.

Only the fact that they intended grievous harm upon US soldiers, likely for religious reasons. For soldiers, why didn't the stop fighting after the war was over? If they kept fighting, then they're terrorists, and as such, deserve nothing less then a bullet in the back of the head.

As do Western Infidels in the eyes of extremists.

If I remember correctly one of the reasons given for the action against Iraq was Saddam's use of torture, so how can you turn around and claim that's it's okay for the liberating forces to employ the very same tactics that they were (are) fighting to depose. The message that is being sent to the Iraqi people in this case is quite clear: We removed one despot in favour of another. This certainly isn't helping to win over the hearts and minds of the people, and I would suspect than many actually probably felt safer with Saddam in power

Those who support and use torture are no better than terrorists themselves.

As do Western Infidels in the eyes of extremists.

If I remember correctly one of the reasons given for the action against Iraq was Saddam's use of torture,
Those who support and use torture are no better than terrorists themselves. </font>[/QUOTE]As I recall, it was WOMD that was the primary cause, not the fact that Saddamn tortured his citizens. As for those supporting torture, all I have to say is that some things are worth torturing for.

It was WOMD until they realised they needed a better reason, then it was all about freedom and liberation from torture and opression...

Yes, WOMD was the initial reason for the action, however as we all no the reasoning behind it changed more often than Rumsfeld changed his underwear. Once it looked like WOMD were no where to be found the human rights/torture/attrocities were dragged up.

I must respectively disagree with you: NOTHING is worth torturing for, NOTHING.

Well, you should have expected this then:
If torture could reveal the name, age, location and appearence of the man who would spread smallpox on the New York Subway, would you condone it?

No, I wouldn't. By condoning and using torture (even a little bit, or just for those extreme cases) you are saying the ends justifies the means. Is this not exactly what Bin Laden thinks? Isn't that basically the terrorists doctrine; The ends support the means?

By violating a ban on torture, you are basically reaffirming the false logic of terrorism and showing support for the terrorist mentality, ethics and actions.

Hehe, I knew that was coming so didn't throw myself behind Zebedog on that one ;)

I think the important point here is that the majority of people held in these jails are simply grunts, without the means to spread smallpox anywhere. A significant proportion of them (as high as 4 in 10) are simply random civilians off the street according to the Red Cross (the only organisation the US allows to visit detainees).

I still wouldn't condone it, even in the circumstances you describe - terrorism is not a threat to our way of life at the present time. Even if there was a 9/11 every year the number of deaths would be infintessimal when compared to the number of people that die from alternate causes...

No, I wouldn't. By condoning and using torture (even a little bit, or just for those extreme cases) you are saying the ends justifies the means. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry to piss on your parade, but it does. False logic of terrorism my ass, terrorism works, and both us know it. The only reason it works is because of craven cowards not willing to quench the flame entirely. If you break a human being to such a degree that he cannot resist anymore, then we will have won. If we can break these invididuals, and obtain information in the process, then we will have gained the upper hand. This war on terrorism won't be won by guns or bombs, but by who has the greater will.